Double Action Comics 1 and 2

[esquirecomics]

The problem is that, and Moondog weigh in here, some ashcans could be considered or actually are "hand-assembled" but are not "married", such as the Fawcett ashcans.

 

On the other hand, some ashcans are married. My Strange Adventures ashcan is simply a cover and an interior copy of Detective #140. Action Funnies is a cover and an interior copy of Detective #10 (parts at least).

 

I saw that Stephen Fishler said above he knew the coverless copy he purchased was from Double Action #2. But this "married" copy was the first he had owned and only second he had seen. So what did he compare this b/w coverless interior to in order to confirm it was from DA#2? I think he is on vacation this week but this would be interesting to know.

 

The problem still remains that no one I know, or that has admitted, has ever compared the interiors of two copies. Or have they?

[comicdonna]

In the context of the language used by Heritage in auctioning off this DA2, does anyone here believe there is a distinction between a "married" book and a "hand-assembled" book?

 

Or is this, as I said above, simply comic "legalese"?

 

Actually, "Hand Assembled" makes it sound like it's something important and special and in my opinion, for experts to say that, is down right deceptive!

This was my exact thoughts as well. I was disappionted to find out that it was the opposite of something special.

[Sardo Numspar]

I have had some real interest in purchasing this book and have looked into the "marriage" vs. the "hand assembled" issue. Heritage maintains that all Double Action 2's were "hand assembled" and that this one just happened to be hand assembled with the DC File copy cover. Heritage further maintains that the book shows no signs of marriage.

 

Since Metro has apparently admitted to marrying the file copy cover to a coverless copy, Heritage's position just does not hold water with me.

 

Whether in fact all of the DA's were orginally hand assembled or not is a different story, and may or may not be true. But from what I have seen discussed here, I dont believe that this book is in an original "hand assembled" format. Rather, I do believe, and Stephen admitted, that this is a married copy and was assembled by Metro prior to the sale to Kylberg.

 

This doesn't mean the book is not very special. However, in my opinion it should be priced accordingly.

[october]

In the context of the language used by Heritage in auctioning off this DA2, does anyone here believe there is a distinction between a "married" book and a "hand-assembled" book?

 

Or is this, as I said above, simply comic "legalese"?

 

Without question. Many books during the silver age were "hand-assembled" at the factory from covers and interiors that didn't make it correctly through the print run. If you ever come across a book with two sets of staples in the interior, that's what happened. Since this assembling occurred at the factory, it's not considered a married book or even a defect. A "true" married book on the other hand...

[esquirecomics]

I have had some real interest in purchasing this book and have looked into the "marriage" vs. the "hand assembled" issue. Heritage maintains that all Double Action 2's were "hand assembled" and that this one just happened to be hand assembled with the DC File copy cover. Heritage further maintains that the book shows no signs of marriage.

 

Since Metro has apparently admitted to marrying the file copy cover to a coverless copy, Heritage's position just does not hold water with me.

 

Whether in fact all of the DA's were orginally hand assembled or not is a different story, and may or may not be true. But from what I have seen discussed here, I dont believe that this book is in an original "hand assembled" format. Rather, I do believe, and Stephen admitted, that this is a married copy and was assembled by Metro prior to the sale to Kylberg.

 

This doesn't mean the book is not very special. However, in my opinion it should be priced accordingly.

 

Heritage, or whomever provided this answer, doesn't know what it/he is talking about. I'd love to see their proof on this statement. At best it is ignorant. At worst, it is nothing less than self-serving b/c they didn't want to state the book was "married" as they perceived it would impact their financial bottom line. Totally intellectually dishonest.

[Crowzilla]

 

This doesn't mean the book is not very special. However, in my opinion it should be priced accordingly.

 

Pretty sure that this has already been figured into the price since it sold for an identical amount as the restored copy in the last auction.

One in this condition that wasn't "hand-assembled" should have a realistic market value of about 3x or more what this copy brought.

 

[swapto]

I have had some real interest in purchasing this book and have looked into the "marriage" vs. the "hand assembled" issue. Heritage maintains that all Double Action 2's were "hand assembled" and that this one just happened to be hand assembled with the DC File copy cover. Heritage further maintains that the book shows no signs of marriage.

 

Since Metro has apparently admitted to marrying the file copy cover to a coverless copy, Heritage's position just does not hold water with me.

 

Whether in fact all of the DA's were orginally hand assembled or not is a different story, and may or may not be true. But from what I have seen discussed here, I dont believe that this book is in an original "hand assembled" format. Rather, I do believe, and Stephen admitted, that this is a married copy and was assembled by Metro prior to the sale to Kylberg.

 

This doesn't mean the book is not very special. However, in my opinion it should be priced accordingly.

 

Heritage, or whomever provided this answer, doesn't know what it/he is talking about. I'd love to see their proof on this statement. At best it is ignorant. At worst, it is nothing less than self-serving b/c they didn't want to state the book was "married" as they perceived it would impact their financial bottom line. Totally intellectually dishonest.

 

I called heritage about this issue and spoke with David Toth who said what sardo mentioned above. heritage stand firm that this a hand assembled copy, not a married cover copy. david said that all DA#2s are hand assembled and that this copy just happened to be assembled with the file copy cover.

 

i think david is wrong though, as from what has been discussed here on the boards, especially the fact that stephen has vouched for it to be married.

 

if heritage knew it was married and decided to post a description saying it is hand assembled, then that is fraudulent. if they did not know about the marrying, for whatever reason, then they only have limited information to go off and David Toth did his best, which isnt much i believe....

 

i am waiting for stephen to return from holidays so i can discuss this issue with him at length.

 

Thanks,

 

Ben

[Scrooge]

Heritage stand firm that this a hand assembled copy, not a married cover copy. david said that all DA#2s are hand assembled and that this copy just happened to be assembled with the file copy cover.

 

Alright, either I'm stupid or this is a pile of compostable_fertilizer.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the semantics of the situations here are that:

 

a) hand-assembled as per Heritage means that the cover was attached back in the days when the books were created (1940's) while

 

b) married would refer to the cover being attached recently (circa late 1990's as per the letter),

 

so that in effect the only difference is NOT in the process but in the TIMING.

 

How in God's green Earth would anyone at Heritage be able to determine and establish that the attaching / stapling was done in the '40s rather than in the '90s.

 

Am I off anywhere here? Is there a further nuance in that hand-assembled means that the cover was originally intended for this book while married would refer to a copy that had a cover, became coverless and then got re-attached to another cover (the File cover). Even if that was the case, there is no way they can ascertain if the attaching happened then and not now?

[comicdonna]

Paging Moondog, RHG ect...

[esquirecomics]

Heritage stand firm that this a hand assembled copy, not a married cover copy. david said that all DA#2s are hand assembled and that this copy just happened to be assembled with the file copy cover.

 

Alright, either I'm stupid or this is a pile of compostable_fertilizer.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the semantics of the situations here are that:

 

a) hand-assembled as per Heritage means that the cover was attached back in the days when the books were created (1940's) while

 

b) married would refer to the cover being attached recently (circa late 1990's as per the letter),

 

so that in effect the only difference is NOT in the process but in the TIMING.

 

How in God's green Earth would anyone at Heritage be able to determine and establish that the attaching / stapling was done in the '40s rather than in the '90s.

 

Am I off anywhere here? Is there a further nuance in that hand-assembled means that the cover was originally intended for this book while married would refer to a copy that had a cover, became coverless and then got re-attached to another cover (the File cover). Even if that was the case, there is no way they can ascertain if the attaching happened then and not now?

 

You're not off at all. This is irks me b/c it is not the first time someone at Heritage has reached a conclusion b/c it suits Heritage. I've seen it done with pedigree designations also. The thing is there is no reason to act this way. Don't assume. Don't guess. All it does is denigrate the integrity of the company for just a few bucks.

 

I have no clue who Toth is? Anyone know his background in comics?

[Scrooge]

I have no clue who Toth is? Anyone know his background in comics?

 

He didn't make it to their website

 

Is this a good time to raise the Heritage fiasco re: Hollywood memorabilia? ...

[Straw-Man]

In the context of the language used by Heritage in auctioning off this DA2, does anyone here believe there is a distinction between a "married" book and a "hand-assembled" book?

 

Or is this, as I said above, simply comic "legalese"?

 

no way can they be synonymous; without MUCH more, how could you discern if 'hand-assembled' was not to mean married cover, but a married c'fold; not a married c'fold, but a married first wrap; or first two wraps; or....

 

c'mon--"married cover" means married cover--nothing else means married cover. the question in my mind, relative to heritage, is did they know the cover was married? the 'label,' notwithstanding what fishler says, does NOT say file copy cover, only file copy. the letter similarly mentions nothing about a married cover. heritage, seeing the overhang, could well've thought that was simply a component of "hand-assembly" of some/all of these books, as some of our boardies have mentioned some were/may have been.

[Straw-Man]

So.... caught in a lie?

 

who cares? frank is very courteous and professional, and they package very securely and mail quickly. sometimes they knock off the shipping costs.

[esquirecomics]

In the context of the language used by Heritage in auctioning off this DA2, does anyone here believe there is a distinction between a "married" book and a "hand-assembled" book?

 

Or is this, as I said above, simply comic "legalese"?

 

no way can they be synonymous; without MUCH more, how could you discern if 'hand-assembled' was not to mean married cover, but a married c'fold; not a married c'fold, but a married first wrap; or first two wraps; or....

 

c'mon--"married cover" means married cover--nothing else means married cover. the question in my mind, relative to heritage, is did they know the cover was married? the 'label,' notwithstanding what fishler says, does NOT say file copy cover, only file copy. the letter similarly mentions nothing about a married cover. heritage, seeing the overhang, could well've thought that was simply a component of "hand-assembly" of some/all of these books, as some of our boardies have mentioned some were/may have been.

 

My recollection is that when I visited Heritage in December 07 and was first told of the two upcoming DA2 auctions the likelihood of this particular book being a married cover was discussed.

[Straw-Man]

In the context of the language used by Heritage in auctioning off this DA2, does anyone here believe there is a distinction between a "married" book and a "hand-assembled" book?

 

Or is this, as I said above, simply comic "legalese"?

 

no way can they be synonymous; without MUCH more, how could you discern if 'hand-assembled' was not to mean married cover, but a married c'fold; not a married c'fold, but a married first wrap; or first two wraps; or....

 

c'mon--"married cover" means married cover--nothing else means married cover. the question in my mind, relative to heritage, is did they know the cover was married? the 'label,' notwithstanding what fishler says, does NOT say file copy cover, only file copy. the letter similarly mentions nothing about a married cover. heritage, seeing the overhang, could well've thought that was simply a component of "hand-assembly" of some/all of these books, as some of our boardies have mentioned some were/may have been.

 

My recollection is that when I visited Heritage in December 07 and was first told of the two upcoming DA2 auctions the likelihood of this particular book being a married cover was discussed.

 

ouch. then they must've gotten that from fishler or the consigner, becuase the little label says no such thing, nor does fishler's letter. toth must've not gotten the memo. what was it hamlet said about denmark's aroma?

[The Black Hand ®]

So.... caught in a lie?

 

who cares? frank is very courteous and professional, and they package very securely and mail quickly. sometimes they knock off the shipping costs.

 

I feel terrible about the things I've said now that you've pointed that out. I imagine that eventually this thread will recieve a three paragraph letter about how dissapointed they are in us and how they just can't please some people, especially the troublemaking type.

[Straw-Man]

So.... caught in a lie?

 

who cares? frank is very courteous and professional, and they package very securely and mail quickly. sometimes they knock off the shipping costs.

 

I feel terrible about the things I've said now that you've pointed that out. I imagine that eventually this thread will recieve a three paragraph letter about how dissapointed they are in us and how they just can't please some people, especially the troublemaking type.

 

it's this kind of rabblerousing that has made stephen back away from the hobby, i recall him saying last year in a thread.

[Scrooge]

So.... caught in a lie?

 

who cares? frank is very courteous and professional, and they package very securely and mail quickly. sometimes they knock off the shipping costs.

 

I feel terrible about the things I've said now that you've pointed that out. I imagine that eventually this thread will recieve a three paragraph letter about how dissapointed they are in us and how they just can't please some people, especially the troublemaking type.

 

it's this kind of rabblerousing that has made stephen back away from the hobby, i recall him saying last year in a thread.

 

Maybe he can't find the time ... too busy match-making ...

[adamstrange]

Heritage stand firm that this a hand assembled copy, not a married cover copy. david said that all DA#2s are hand assembled and that this copy just happened to be assembled with the file copy cover.

 

Alright, either I'm stupid or this is a pile of compostable_fertilizer.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the semantics of the situations here are that:

 

a) hand-assembled as per Heritage means that the cover was attached back in the days when the books were created (1940's) while

 

b) married would refer to the cover being attached recently (circa late 1990's as per the letter),

 

so that in effect the only difference is NOT in the process but in the TIMING.

 

How in God's green Earth would anyone at Heritage be able to determine and establish that the attaching / stapling was done in the '40s rather than in the '90s.

 

Am I off anywhere here? Is there a further nuance in that hand-assembled means that the cover was originally intended for this book while married would refer to a copy that had a cover, became coverless and then got re-attached to another cover (the File cover). Even if that was the case, there is no way they can ascertain if the attaching happened then and not now?

 

I don't think it's just the timing but whether this was produced by the publisher according to their defined process. That defined process could be mass-production at a printing plant, hand-assembly at the plant (October's example), hand assembled by on-site production staff (ashcans) etc. Whether this copy is designated as being married or some other term, I think it's reasonable to expect any external, unsanctioned method to be disclosed.

[Straw-Man]

Heritage stand firm that this a hand assembled copy, not a married cover copy. david said that all DA#2s are hand assembled and that this copy just happened to be assembled with the file copy cover.

 

Alright, either I'm stupid or this is a pile of compostable_fertilizer.

 

Someone please correct me if I'm wrong but the semantics of the situations here are that:

 

a) hand-assembled as per Heritage means that the cover was attached back in the days when the books were created (1940's) while

 

b) married would refer to the cover being attached recently (circa late 1990's as per the letter),

 

so that in effect the only difference is NOT in the process but in the TIMING.

 

How in God's green Earth would anyone at Heritage be able to determine and establish that the attaching / stapling was done in the '40s rather than in the '90s.

 

Am I off anywhere here? Is there a further nuance in that hand-assembled means that the cover was originally intended for this book while married would refer to a copy that had a cover, became coverless and then got re-attached to another cover (the File cover). Even if that was the case, there is no way they can ascertain if the attaching happened then and not now?

 

I don't think it's just the timing but whether this was produced by the publisher according to their defined process. That defined process could be mass-production at a printing plant, hand-assembly at the plant (October's example), hand assembled by on-site production staff (ashcans) etc. Whether this copy is designated as being married or some other term, I think it's reasonable to expect any external, unsanctioned method to be disclosed.

 

wait; i'm having a bluechip moment----is there a chance that the coverless copy fishler admits he had, and later put the file copy cover on, was, 50+ years before, MEANT to go on the coverless copy?? then by some cosmic being's idea of a joke they did not come together in the printing plant, tragically left the joint separate and apart and, ultimately, and only by the grace of metro's boss, did the twain converge as PLANNED ALL ALONG??????? i think i'm on to something. Mark? 'Hand? Scrooge? Adam? thoughts?